And in the course of this proof, (necessarily involved in it, in fact,) it has been incidentally shewn that the sense of Scripture is not, by any means, invariably _one_; and _that_ sense the most obvious to those who wrote, heard, or read it. It has been fully shewn that the office of the Interpreter is _not_, by any means, (as Mr. Jowett imagines,) "to recover the meaning of the words _as they first struck on the ears, or flashed before the eyes of those who heard or read them_." (p. 338.) The Reverend writer's repeated assertion that "we have no reason to attribute to the Prophet or Evangelist any second or hidden sense different from that which appears on the surface," (p. 380,) has been fully, and as it is hoped effectually refuted. And here I might lay down my pen. For since, at the end of 74 pages, the Professor thus delivers himself, (in a kind of imitation of St. Paul's language[186],)--"Of what has been said, this is the sum,--That Scripture, _like other books_, has _one_ meaning, which has to be gathered from itself ... _without regard to à priori notions about its nature and origin_:" that, "It is to be interpreted _like other books_, with attention to the prevailing state of civilization and knowledge," and so forth; (p. 404;)--it must suffice to say that, having established the very opposite conclusion, I claim to have effectually answered his Essay; because I have overthrown what he admits to be "the sum" of it. Let me be permitted however--before I proceed to review some other parts of his performance,--in the briefest manner, not so much to recapitulate, as to exhibit 'the sum' of what has been hitherto delivered on the other side; in somewhat different language, and as it were from a different point of view.